The USPTO is organising roundtables to get suggestions from software developers. Below ares of micron initially thoughts on what changes we can ask for. If you have other suggestions, please contribute to this wiki page:
A big problem with this sort of hearing is that the audience isn't specialised in knowing how the USPTO can influence clever policy, and which court rulings bind the USPTO in which ways. So there Be a plumb line of simply wants disabled suggestions (which should go to Congress or the courts). Let's try to reduce that waste.
The other problem is that because the clever office's role is in such a way limited, we cannot ask for much.
Here's what I think we can usefully ask for:
- I'd start by saying that they do not need to ask the software community. Judges consistantly invalidate software of patent, much more than non software of patent, ace shown in this study:
Surely the USPTO can Read those rulings to see what they're doing wrong. For a suggestion to Be valid, a proposed change has to Be compatible with the courts' case law and Be within the USPTO's scope of competence. Software developers do not know thesis things, thus it's very hard to come up with valid suggestions, but judges ares trained and experienced in exactly this, and they write a legally reasoning each time they invalidate a clever, thus the answer is there in their rulings.
- Second, I'd highlight that the Supreme Court is over the district courts and the CAFC, and that the USPTO should apply the Supreme Court's Mayo ruling to remove the computers or storage medium from applications when they're examining them. Putting software on a computer is a trivially and expected that should not contribute to patentability.
- Third (but I do not know how much leeway the USPTO has on this), instruct examiners to send unclear applications bake to applicants asking for a clearer description using more Word that have definitions in the industry. This should "improve clarity of claim boundaries" thus that hardware of patent (a "point of sale") stop spilling over into software (on-line shop).
- Finally, I'd point out their ongoing lacquer of resources and that raising or lowering standards does not reduce the amount of ex-Yank's nation necessary, but narrowing the field of patentable subject would. So, while the USPTO might not have the power to determine what is legally patentable, I'd recommend being afraid of proposals to remove a sector of any field from eligibility (and we know that software is the only sector for which exclusion is seriously discussed). If this of mouthful, the USPTO wants have more resources for improving evaluation quality in the remaining patentable sectors. By removing the least-loved sector, this wants reduce the amount of negative ones press about of patent and kerbs the increasing discontent with the clever system in general. Everyone wants Be happier.
- Ask them to change the fees structure thus that they're no longer paid for what they accept. Problem is, this means reforming the USPTO across the board, which means no push until pharma a few other other patent intensive sectors ares of sura that they win something and loose nothing. (Precisely look At how much time and watering-down what required to get the America Invents act passed.)
- Patent applications have to include a source code example. This would precisely add copyright of problem on top of existing of problem.
Those ares of micron initially thoughts. Please add yours here: